HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the duration of a regular session. REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS pointed out that HJR 4 proposes an amendment to Alaska's Constitution that would limit regular legislative sessions to 90 consecutive calendar days. If the resolution passes, the proposed constitutional amendment would be presented to the voters at the 2004 general election. Voters would decide the fate of the proposal. Representative Samuels stated that ninety days is more than enough time for the Legislature to complete business. In an era of decreasing budgets, reducing the session by thirty days would save State funds. Shorter sessions would: (1) Save almost $1 million in per diem and staffing costs; (2) Aid in candidate recruitment; and (3) Focus the public's attention. Representative Samuels added that other states can do their work in 90 days or less and that Alaska should be able to accomplish that also. Fourteen other states have legislative sessions of 90 days or less. He elaborated that another benefit to the shorter session idea is that Alaskans want citizen-legislators. They feel legislators should be able to carry on a livelihood outside of legislative work. Shorter sessions would encourage a larger number of people to run for office and still be able to make a living at their everyday jobs. Representative Samuels noted that prior to 1984, the Legislature had no time limit on the number of days it could remain in session. The voters approved the present 120-day limit on November 6, 1984. Since that time, it has been amply proven that the Alaska Legislature can operate within a time limit. Vice Chair Meyer asked about the history of the 120-day session. Representative Samuels pointed out that there was information in member's packets on what other states do. Historically, Alaska has slowly "racketed up the number of days". He admitted that he did not know the specifics. Vice Chair Meyer noted that some states meet every other year. He questioned if a 90-day session would work better in Alaska than having a bi-annual session. Representative Samuels thought that the biannual idea would be more difficult because the State's finances are so dependant with the price of oil. That price cannot be determined from year to year. Vice Chair Meyer noted that he supports the bill. Representative Fate noted that the issue had been proposed a number of years ago and had moved through the House State Affairs Committee. He questioned how thoroughly the complexity of the issues had been discussed regarding the Alaskan fiscal dynamics. Representative Samuels pointed out that the first committee of referral had been the House State Affairs Committee and added that issues and legislation could continue to be addressed during the interim. Should the legislation pass, the first legislative session would remain at 120-days in order to guarantee adequate time to discuss the details of implementing the plan. He advised that there had been "thorough hearings" to address the issues brought forth in the House State Affairs Committee. Co-Chair Harris agreed that the idea was good. He inquired how many states in the country have governor's that choose all their cabinet members as well as the attorney general. Representative Samuels replied that he had been informed that Alaska's Executive Branch is one of the most powerful in the country. Co-Chair Harris pointed out that it was designed that way when the Alaska Constitution was written. He questioned if Alaska really has the ability to operate as a State given the current available resources and not using Permanent Fund earnings. He voiced concern giving up legislative power in the third branch of government. He noted that he would support the legislation if there was some sort of guarantee that the Legislature would have interim committees that could operate and move legislation. He added that 90-days would be fine if there was a process in place of working in both bodies. If there is a situation of different parties ruling, the budget process could be much longer and more drawn out. He stressed that the Legislature should attempt to avoid situations of "extending legislative sessions". Representative Samuels reiterated that more work and legislation could be handled during the interim. Co-Chair Harris suggested that the sessions could be changed starting in March when the spring forecast is available. The Legislature could even meet in Anchorage or Fairbanks. Representative Samuels commented that would be a better process than what currently exists. Co-Chair Harris added that the session could be shortened to 60-days if legislation could be moved through committee meetings. He noted that fewer laws would be passed. Representative Fate pointed out that in the last two years, the Governor has flooded the market with his legislation. He voiced concern with not enough time for the budget process and individual legislation. The change could make it possible to set up where the Administration dictates the "flow of traffic" without a committee process. He warned that the idea needs to be thoroughly discussed before making the proposed change. Representative Samuels argued that other than the budget, the Legislature does not "have to do anything". If the budget information is available the first month of the session, bills could be placed on the agenda following that process. Representative Fate agreed that problems could result and that last year, the scenario with the Governor's sixty bills did impact the flow of legislation. Representative Stoltze commented that with a mission and focus much could be accomplished in a limited time period. He provided an historical reference to amending the constitution. Representative Stoltze thought that the government must be responsive and limited; the balance will have to be addressed. Representative Samuels enumerated the days not in session as outlined in the information packet. Co-Chair Harris asked if there had been discussion given to having a short session outside of Juneau, lasting perhaps a week, in order to move a bill to the floor. He pointed out that otherwise, the bills would have to wait until the following session to be heard. Representative Samuels replied that discussion had not yet happened. He did not think it was a bad idea, reiterating that a shortened session would help to spread out the workload. He added that it could help the public process and create a better product increasing the number of people participating. Representative Samuels advised that he did not see the "projected $1 million dollar savings", as it will cost transport legislators from place to place, however, indicated that he did not think it would cost more than the $1 million dollars. Co-Chair Harris pointed out that the Alaska Statutes call for the Legislature to meet in Juneau and a "special session" as determined by the Legislature can be determined. Representative Stoltze thought that the legislation would create a need for a comprehensive revision of the Uniform Rules in order to allow for such a revision. Representative Samuels agreed. He acknowledged that they would have to do a lot of work, "looking at how business is being done, internally", and if the same rules would continue to apply. Representative Stoltze pointed out that any change to the Uniform Rules would need a 2/3 vote of the entire Legislature. Representative Fate commented on the proposed interim committee. He asked if there would be discussion on having time certain discussions or if they would be more ad hoc. Representative Samuels pointed out that recommendations had been made to spread the workload out throughout the year. He acknowledged that the specifics had not been discussed. HJR 4 would only establish the framework. Representative Fate voiced concern if legislators could be efficient in a 90-day period. He asked if that discussion had taken place. Representative Samuels admitted that in detail, it had not. Co-Chair Harris stated additional consideration would need to be given to issues regarding the timetable for the Governor submitting his budget and the amendments. Co-Chair Harris MOVED to report CS HJR 4 (STA) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. TAPE HFC 04 - 55, Side B  CS HJR 4 (STA) was reported out of Committee with a "no recommendation" and with fiscal note #3 by the Office of the Lt. Governor and fiscal note #4 by the Legislative Affairs Agency.